Rajasthan High Court Quashes GST Appeal; Search Authorizing Officer Cannot Act as Appellate Authority.

The Legal Maxim: “No One Shall Be a Judge in His Own Cause”

The Rajasthan High Court, in the case of M/s Ramjilal Mohanlal v. Union of India (2026), recently addressed a fundamental breach of natural justice where a senior officer occupied two conflicting roles in the same tax proceeding.

Facts of the Case

The Authorization: An Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur, issued an authorization in Form GST INS-01 to conduct an inspection and search of the petitioner’s premises under Section 67.
The Adjudication: Following the search, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued, and an Order-in-Original (adjudication order) was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO).
The Appeal: The petitioner filed a statutory appeal under Section 107 against the AO’s order.
The Conflict: The appeal was assigned to the same Additional Commissioner who had originally authorized the search and inspection. The officer dismissed the appeal.
The Challenge: The petitioner moved the High Court, arguing that the officer was biased as he was essentially sitting in judgment over the results of an investigation he himself had initiated.

The Judicial Verdict

The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed the appellate order based on the following grounds:

Foundational Bias: The court applied the doctrine of nemo judex in causa sua. When an officer authorizes a search, they form a prima facie opinion that there is a reason to believe tax evasion exists. Allowing that same officer to hear the appeal creates a “real apprehension of bias.”
Undisputed Facts: The Revenue did not dispute that the officer who authorized the search under Section 67 was the same individual who acted as the Appellate Authority under Section 107.
Procedural Fairness: Justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. A taxpayer cannot expect an impartial review from an officer who is “wedded” to the initial investigative findings.
Limited Interference: The Court did not enter into the merits of the tax demand. It focused solely on the procedural illegality of the officer’s dual role.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Check the Signature: Always cross-verify the name and designation of the officer who signed the search authorization (INS-01) against the officer presiding over your appeal.
Right to Impartiality: Under GST law, the Appellate Authority is intended to be an independent check on the Adjudicating Authority. Any overlap between the investigative wing and the appellate wing vitiates the entire process.
Constitutional Remedy: While Section 107 provides an internal remedy, a Writ Petition under Article 226 is the correct path if the appellate process itself is compromised by bias or a violation of natural justice.
Remand Outcome: In such cases, the court typically remands the matter to a different competent officer to ensure a fresh and unbiased adjudication.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Ramjilal Mohanlal

Union of India^*

MRS. SANGEETA SHARMA and Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, JJ.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7615, 7616, 7636 and 7637 of 2024

JANUARY 29, 2026

Akshay Sharma and Dheeraj Kumar for the Petitioner. Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG, Rohan Mittal, Arnav Singh, Manaswia Nakwaal, Dhairya Agarwal and Sandeep Pathak for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The instant civil writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“i. To call for the record from the office of the respondents for its kind perusal;

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or writs for quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, Additional Commissioner, Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Department, Zone-Bharatpur, Rajasthan and declare the same as being contrary to the principle of natural justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the search and survey proceedings were initiated in pursuance of the authorization for inspection and search conducted by Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, Additional Commissioner, Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, on 06.01.2021 vide form GST INS-01 under Section 67(2) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘the Act of 2017) read with Rule 139(1) of the RGST Rules, 2017. Upon conclusion of the inspection and search proceedings, a Show Cause notice was issued on 30.03.2023 in pursuance of the search proceedings and thereafter, the order dated 05.06.2023 was passed by the respondent No. 5 against the petitioner firm.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2023, the petitioner firm preferred an appeal under Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 before the Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, who vide its order dated 11.12.2023, dismissed the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines the challenge to a singular jurisdictional infirmity. It is submitted that the authorization for inspection and search dated 06.01.2021 was issued by Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur, in exercise of powers under Section 67 of the Act of 2017. The same officer, in his capacity as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017, thereafter presided over and decided the statutory appeal arising from proceedings initiated pursuant to the very authorization issued by him. It is contended that such dual exercise of power, first as the authorizing authority for inspection and search, and subsequently as the appellate adjudicator, offends the foundational principle of natural justice that no person shall be a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in causa sua), thereby vitiating the appellate order on account of inherent bias and lack of institutional impartiality.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner have had a remedy against the appellate order and ought to have taken that remedy and no such objection was raised before. She further submitted that the order of sanctioning the search and seizure was the administrative exercise performed in a different capacity.

6. This Court, without going into the merits of the case and confining itself to the limited submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, as also in view of the fact that it is not disputed by the respondents that the same officer acted as the authorizing authority for inspection and search under Section 67 of the Act of 2017 and thereafter functioned as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017, is inclined to make limited interference in the matter. Consequently, the appellate order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 107 of the Act of 2017 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 05.06.2023 be decided afresh by any competent Appellate Authority other than Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, strictly in accordance with law and without being prejudiced by any observations made herein.

7. The present writ petition disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.